"Psychoanalysis" has a very specific meaning if used in the old school Freudian sense, but "analysis" is about the most generic, widely-used term for therapy that you'll run into. Psychodynamic is widely defined as "analysis" but most often it isn't (or shouldn't be) the old school "psychoanalysis."

It doesn't sound to me like the prior responders were all talking about old-school psychoanalysis. Group? No, old-school psychoanalysis is one on-on-one (think Freud's couch) where the analyst is to be a "blank slate" that the patient (unintentionally) projects onto, with the relation of (as mentioned by another poster) transference becoming the central focus.

On advice, I tried it and after 5 or so sessions of the old school style, I hated it. It was like paying someone to take what I said and change the words around and make a question out of. I felt like I was drowning while my analyst sat there with a life-saver that she refused to throw to me (meaning offering help). Silent. I thought it was juvenile and stupid. Maybe when I was much younger--when I thought I wanted that old-school approach--I would've liked it, but it was of no benefit in trying to help with very serious, immediate issues, which is what I needed. It's a long-term proposition. I was in a different place right then. Maybe you are. I'd say it probably has its place for some people at some times, but I can't see it being very helpful as being the main therapy mode for anyone I've known with mental health needs beyond the short-term.

Just because you like to analyze doesn't mean it's good for you as a therapy method. Sometimes there can be too much analysis--"paralysis by analysis." But a solid psychodynamic approach is engaged in much analysis without all the (bad, to me) bells and whistles of the old-school approach. It's more human and can help with immediate issues. Worked for me. There's a lot of focus on transference (which implies object relations work) etc.